Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast-NBC Deal Accidentally Protects Internet?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

jfruhlinger writes "Details of the conditions that the Department of Justice required to approve Comcast's purchase of NBC have emerged today. Blogger Kevin Fogarty looks at the details — Comcast is forbidden from blocking Netflix over its pipes, and must sell NBC shows via iTunes and other similar services — and concludes that Internet access for everybody, including business users, has been protected, more or less by accident."

23 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. One-page "print" link by bwintx · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.itworld.com/print/138431

    --
    Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
  2. Not at all by captaindomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:Not at all by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I haven't RTFA yet but from the summary it doesn't sound like a matter of agreed contractual language between corporations but rather a demand from the DoJ to the merged corporations. While it doesn't go so far as to assert an inherent right to a free internet, it does seem to acknowledge that potential harm can come from an ISP also being a content provider.

    2. Re:Not at all by chemicaldave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

      The article certainly doesn't paint it that way. FTFA:

      Still, in approving the deal, federal officials attached dozens of conditions, including several big ones to protect Internet video: Comcast must sell its content to online video services. That gives them access to marquee NBC Universal programming. Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch. Comcast must sell stand-alone Internet access at a reasonable price, without tying it to a cable TV package, to enable cord-cutting. That includes offering a standard 6-megabit-per-second plan, which is fast enough to handle Internet video, for roughly $50 a month.

      The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network." Sounds pretty universal to me. I just hope the author wasn't paraphrasing a document that specified Internet video only from certain providers and not others, i.e. youtube, netflix, hulu, etc.

    3. Re:Not at all by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

      And back in reality, I'm happy about this. Adding specific regulations and requirements to a merger of this sort is exactly how the DoJ is supposed to do its job. Just saying "the internet should be free and open" doesn't do crap - you need specific regulations on specific companies to make that happen.

      Specifically with regards to this merger: without the merger there would be no need for requirements like this, because there is no conflict of interest between the content producer (NBC) and any one distributor. NBC would like to license its content to all distributors so as to maximize its own profit. Once a distributor (Comcast) buys the content producer, there's the conflict of interest (for example, the distributor wants to make NBC content available only on its distribution network so as to make subscribers who want to watch NBC shows have to come over to Comcast's distribution system), and there's the need for DoJ or FCC to intervene.

      I see this as good news. Vague language about openness and neutrality is ripe for loopholes and other asshattery by the distributors and content producers. Specific regulations on them like this should have more teeth.

    4. Re:Not at all by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

      I can see your point, but I'm not at all sure that this is a negative development in the interim. Because what it does is drive a wedge between the different ISPs.

      Before this deal if you tried to propose network neutrality rules, all the ISPs were against it with a united front. Now, if Comcast already has to follow the rules, why shouldn't they take the position that their competitors should have to as well? They certainly don't want a situation where AT&T can block or delay NBC content in favor of AT&T's "preferred" partners or whatever, or charge NBC for access to AT&T customers.

      The real problem is if the settlement rules aren't really effective. If Comcast can still pull the sort of thing they are with Level 3 and Netflix and that isn't considered a violation of the settlement then the settlement is meaningless, because it isn't a barrier to bad behavior -- it's a fence post they can just walk around. In which case they retain a shared interest with the other ISPs to be able to keep doing things like that.

    5. Re:Not at all by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      The point is that if the DOJ, or any group says "Comcast is not permitted to block Netflix" it implies that Comcast can block things. That is very important.

    6. Re:Not at all by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network."

      The summary is wrong. TFA doesn't say that. The stipulation prevents Comcast from totally disconnecting Netflix from its customers, but Comcast can still throttle Netflix traffic as much as it likes, "if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction.". In other words, Comcast can throttle Netflix to the point that it is unusable.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Not at all by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      What did Comcast do to these companies, and why is it a "bad thing" in your opinion?

      It's simple. Comcast should not be charging another network any money for traffic which is destined for Comcast customers. Comcast has a complete monopoly over access to those customers from the perspective of other networks, and being allowed to charge peers, rather than the customers themselves who have the option to cancel their Comcast service, would unacceptably allow them to charge monopoly prices. It also greatly distorts the content market, because it significantly increases costs for content providers like Netflix who compete with Comcast owned and affiliated content providers like NBC.

      What about ESPN360 and Disneyconnection.com charging ISPs extra fees to access their websites (or else blocking them). Is that also a bad thing?

      It is, and I really wish all the ISPs had just told them to piss up a rope, because that would have solved it. But since that didn't happen, now we have to argue about whether requiring an ISP to pay for all their customers rather than just the customers who actually want the service is anti-competitive etc. But that has everything to do with regular old antitrust and competition law and nothing to do with network neutrality.

    8. Re:Not at all by Logarhythmic · · Score: 2

      GP was correct. The first amendment, which gives us the right to free speech in the USofA, says (emphasis mine):

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      The Constitution gives Congress the power to write certain laws and not others. It is not law in and of itself.

      --
      "Before criticizing someone, first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, you'll be a mile away... and you'll have his shoes."
    9. Re:Not at all by paiute · · Score: 2

      Depending on how you describe it, there is no way to slow something without blocking it, even if the block is only temporary.

      ITWorld says "The DoJ did not require and Comcast did not promise to not throttle or slow traffic from Netflix -- or a business customer's videoconferencing provider -- if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction."

      But the AP says " Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch."

      So which is it?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    10. Re:Not at all by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems you, the blogger and the Justice Department missed the entirely more insidious, but far more realistic way that Comcast is going to control what content is being accessed: user-based billing. Start with a plan for - oh, $20. Everything is accessible at full speed. Make it something juicy like 20 mbit per second. Then add user-based billing, and a soft cap at 50 GB. And finally, the coup-de-grace: the cap limit does not apply to Comcast owned and operated sites, but applies to Netflix, Youtube, etc.

      What do you get? Everyone's surfing along happily for the first week, and then bam! - the download cap hits. Suddenly, that cap free site for Comcast shows looks mighty good. And Netflix might as well serve video at 320x240 resolution in a 56 kbit/sec stream, because that's all they'll ever be able to show anymore to Comcast users.

      It's beautiful, isn't it? Comcast doesn't do a single thing to its traffic. The entire Internet is accessible. It's not even throttled. But the users will, en masse, flock to its sites and desert anything that's not on the basic, cap-free plan. And thanks to the monopolies and duopolies that Comcast enjoys, many end-users won't even have the option to switch to something better.

      We're fucked. We've left the best times of the Internet behind us.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Not at all by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Universal and Comcast are going to be the same. That's the point of the merger.

    12. Re:Not at all by sorak · · Score: 2

      Forgive me if I am being redundant, but I as a comcast customer, am paying for the right to connect to the internet. Netflix is paying some other provider for the right to connect to the internet. So, if we're both connected to the same network, and we have both paid, then what is unpaid fee that comcast is going on about? Why are they blaming netflix for providing a service that makes me want to use the bandwidth I already paid for?

      It seems to me that comcast is basically a mail man who wants to take credit for everything good that happens. If you get a paycheck, "ooh, the mailman gave you money. You should at least buy him a nice dinner". If the letter is to inform you that your grandmother won the lottery, then "the mailman made it happen. He demands half". But comcast is really nothing more than a mailman with delusions of grandeur, and a monopoly that allows him to get away with it.

    13. Re:Not at all by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      >>>Comcast should not be charging another network any money for traffic which is destined for Comcast customers.

      So businesses like netflix.com or google.com should just be able to connect to the internet without paying a fee? Hmmm.

      Maybe I should start a business (of one) so I too can get free internet access.

      Hmm... Not sure if Troll...
      Of course Google, Netfix, and other web content producers have to pay for access to the Internet. They pay THEIR ISP, not your ISP so that you can access their content that you already pay to access via your Internet connection.

      The double dipping is what we're pissed off about. That's what net-neutrality seeks to prevent. Let's say I make a website. It gets popular. All of a sudden, people are complaining that connections to my website are slow. I'm pissed because I'm allready paying my ISP for a huge pipe that should be more than adequate to serve my visitor traffic...

      I investigate, and find that my traffic is mysteriously slower to customers using Comcast than other ISPs. I contact Comcast and after troubleshooting the problem I end up talking to a sales Rep that says I can "pay" to make it go faster by co-locating some of my servers on their properties...

      The reality of the situation is that Comcast is running their links at near maximum. They're not "throttling" my traffic per-se, but during peak times the hardware is so saturated that my streaming website video lags all to hell.

      My Co-Location servers may alleviate the symptoms MY visitors are having, but any other site like mine (that isn't co-locating with Comcast) will have the same shitty peak time problems. Should my traffic mysteriously get slow again, Comcast can say that I need to pay for additional co-location space. Distributed designs are good, but at some point you need to control your own content... Giving a 3rd party too much control over my website (esp. when I already pay my ISP for a huge pipe) is not a good idea.

      Having discovered the root of the cause (Oversaturated links) in my initial troubleshooting session I propose a much better solution that will help not just MY visitors, but all other websites' visitors too. I offer to help fix the issue by giving Comcast a buch of free hardware (so they can actually handle their peak loads instead of dropping packets via QoS rules). The new hardware means that the links won't run as near full capacity.

      Comcast outright refuses this offer (as they refused the same offer from Level3)... for if they accepted, they wouldn't be able to force people to charge exorbitant co-location fees because the shitty connection issue will go away!

      Can you now see why transparency, and regulations need to be in place? It's Comcast's right to have a shitty service, but the tiered Internet with forced co-located servers gives Comcast (and other residential ISPs) power over what content gets to whom, and gives them incentive to give their customers shitty service! No Network Neutrality is a no-win for everyone (except Comcast).

      Even without a non-tiering net neutrality regulation: If Comcast outright refuses to co-locate because they have a competing video on demand product, then Comcast can make the competitors' (Netflix, Google, etc.) services seem a lot worse to Comcast customers. They don't have to "block" Netflix or Google, they can just refuse to let their traffic go fast enough to be usable.

      Another huge problem is that there is not much competition on the residential ISP front. If Comcast is the only game in town, and they say "Suck it: Netfix is going to be shitty over our connections", then as a consumer, you have no choice to switch providers -- The much praised "free market" doesn't exist in ISP land anymore...

      Net neutrality is needed. This bullshit DOJ statement is just that. It doesn't address the issue I've pointed out above (which is what Level3 is dealing with RE: Comcast, FYI).

    14. Re:Not at all by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      I used to be a cynic, but after 12 years I've never seen an ISP cripple their customers like that.

      Consider this. There's some duration of time a customer can use technical support for each month before they are no longer profitable. This includes customers calling in to complain.

      ISPs factor these details in.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  3. Yeah, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comcast is forbidden from blocking Netflix over its pipes, and must sell NBC shows via iTunes and other similar services

    Are they forbidden to charge more, or deliver at lower priority than their own content?

    We've got to get back to forbidding mergers of infrastructure providers with content providers. Look at what happened when the "approve anything" frenzy let the banks spread into areas that created conflicts of interest.

    1. Re:Yeah, but - by KarrdeSW · · Score: 3, Informative
      Summary is somewhat lacking. Quote from TFA:

      Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch.

      No direct mention of charging more from what I can see, but I think that would fall pretty clearly under "preventing its subscribers from accessing".

  4. The more detailed DoJ press release by chemicaldave · · Score: 5, Informative

    here is a more detailed press release from the DoJ itself. It has more specific language such as:

    The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:

    • Comcast may not retaliate against any broadcast network (or affiliate), cable programmer, production studio or content licensee for licensing content to a competing cable, satellite or telephone company or OVD, or for raising concerns to the department or the FCC;
    • Comcast must relinquish its management rights in Hulu, an OVD. Without such a remedy, Comcast could, through its seats on Hulu's board of directors, interfere with the management of Hulu, and, in particular, the development of products that compete with Comcast's video service. Comcast also must continue to make NBCU content available to Hulu that is comparable to the programming Hulu obtains from Disney and News Corp;
    • In accordance with recently established Open Internet requirements, Comcast is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an OVD's lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer. Comcast must also maintain the high-speed Internet service it offers to its customers by continuing to offer download speeds of at least 12 megabits per second in markets where it has upgraded its broadband network. Additionally, Comcast is required to give other firms' content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing; and
    • Comcast may not, with certain narrow exceptions, require programmers or video distributors to agree to licensing terms that seek to limit online distributors' access to content.
  5. Re:So Netflix and NBC shows are the Internet? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. This could be an onion headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This could be an onion headline....
    "Giant Corporation Accidentally Treats People Fairly"

  7. must sell NBC shows via iTunes by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    must sell NBC shows via iTunes and other similar services

    Suddenly NBC stops producing original shows and just licenses shows from other sources. As a bonus, maybe Comcast will use the extra timeslots to try to undersell Netflix by showing the 20th-30th most popular/recent movies on NBC over the air for free? Kill the competition by bleeding all over them? If people regularly get free slightly older movies over the air, why bother with netflix?

  8. Enforcement is the key by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    Laws and contracts are worthless unless enforced.

    "Man has only those rights he can defend"
    - Jack McCoy